Reprinted from the American Journal of International Law 
for July, 1908. 


NEUTRALIZATION versus IMPERIALISM 


BY 

ALPHEUS HENRY SNOW 

It 



NEUTRALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


The article on “Neutralization’’ in the April number of the 
American Journal of International Law^ written by a promi¬ 
nent member of the New England Anti-Imperialist League, seems 
to furnish additional evidence of the change of mind which has 
occurred in recent years among the advocates of the policy of anti¬ 
imperialism. They originally based themselves on a supposed uni¬ 
versal principle, according to which all “peoples” were regarded 
as having a natural right of independence — it not being made clear 
by them what constitutes a “people,” or how great a number of 
nations would result from the application pf the doctrine, or how 
the great number of nations which would probably result would 
be able to get on together. The policy, or doctrine, based on this 
supposed principle has been called “nationalism,” and the revolu¬ 
tionary and opposition parties in colonies and in incorporated 
regions which are seeking to be disincorporated now generally call 
themselves “nationalists.” For some years after the Spanish war 
of 1898, the American advocates of anti-imperialism, acting in 
sympathy with the “nationalists” in the Philippines, demanded 
the immediate recognition by the United States of the independence 
of the Philippines and, with less emphasis, of Hawaii and Porto 
Rico. Confronted with the obj.ectiion that to declare these islands 
independent would in all probability result in their falling into 
anarchy and barbarism, or in their being annexed as colonies by one 
of the great powers other than the United States, or in a war to 
prevent such annexation in which the United States would partici¬ 
pate, the anti-imperialists, under the leadership of the League, 
changed their ground. Independence, or “nationality,” was no 
longer regarded by them as a natural right of all “peoples” in 
the original strict sense; and an arrangement with respect to these 
islands called “neutralization,” based largely on expediencv, has for 
some time been advocated bv them. The article in question may. 


Gift 



NEUTRALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


563 


therefore, perhaps not improperly be regarded as a statement in 
detail of the present position of the anti-imperialists. 

Neutralization/’ as explained by the writer of the article, would 
require that the United States should initiate and attempt to bring 
about an alliance between itself and the other great powers, by 
which the Philippines should be guaranteed against intervention 
except by mutual consent of all the allies and except as necessary 
to maintain a stable government, and against all interference of 
powers external to the alliance. This guaranty would operate 
whether the allied powers were at peace or were engaged in war. 

Several objections at once present themselves to such a plan. It 
requires this nation to refrain from helping the Filipinos unless it 
can obtain the consent of other great powers, who at present have 
no right in the Philippines. It requires this nation to enter into 
a guaranty-alliance involving joint supervision by the allies over 
the Philippines, which might, under some circumstances, lead to 
a necessity for joint intervention. The author of the article sug¬ 
gests that the alliance maintain a union navy ” for this police 
duty.” This would of course necessitate the conversion of the 
alliance into a confederation or a federal union, of which the United 
States would be a part. Such an alliance would certainly come 
within the class of entangling alliances ” whicli it is the policy of 
this nation to avoid. 

The author of the article does not confine himself to recommend¬ 
ing such a guaranty-alliance with respect to the Philippines alone; 
he proposes that the plan be extended, on the initiative of this 
nation, so as to include not only all existing metropolitan nations 
and all of their existing colonies, but also all the ^Sveaker peoples.” 
Could this great scheme be put in operation, it is evident that the 
world would be divided into two great parties having opposite 
interests; in the one would be included the peoples inhabitating the 
national territory of the great allied guaranteeing powers, and in 
the other would be the weaker peoples,” who would be neutral¬ 
ized,” and subject to the supervision of a joint navy ” of the 
allied powers doing ‘^police duty.” Such a situation would, it 
would seem, clearly lead to one of two results: If the guaranteeing 


564 THE AMEEICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

powers intervened among the weaker peoples ’’ for the keeping 
of order, there would probably arise a vicious form of attempted 
world empire; if they did not so intervene, the system would proba¬ 
bly degenerate into one of widespread and progressive anarchy. 

There seems, therefore, to be little hope for the improvement of 
present conditions along the path of neutralization.’^ The policy 
of nationalism pure and simple has been abandoned by the anti- 
imperialists because found to be indefensible, as tending toward 
anarchism or absolutism. The policy of opportunism is now un¬ 
popular everywhere, and is opposed to the American genius. It- 
appears therefore to be worth while to inquire whether the solution 
of the problem of the relations which are to permanently exist 
between the United States and the annexed insular countries may 
not be found in some form of imperialism. 

The anti-imperialist idea of imperialism is shown in the article 
to which reference has been made. The author of that article re¬ 
gards imperialism as a policy based on the principle of owner¬ 
ship,” and of rule over subject-peoples.” If imperialism were 
such a policy, it would be out of the question for this nation, as 
being opposed to the truth which this nation holds to be self- 
evident,” that “ all men are created equal and are endowed by their 
Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The doctrine of the 
spiritual equality of all men as the basis of some rights which are 
unalienable is the corner-stone of the American system, and any 
policy which is opposed to this equality must be rejected. But 
whatever views of imperialism may be held in some parts of the 
world which would justify the interpretation placed by the anti- 
imperialists upon the word imperialism, it has another aspect, 
which is the modern and American aspect, in which it is wholly con¬ 
sistent with American principles and American ideals. 

The modern imperialism had its inception in the American Kevo- 
lution. Great Britain insisted that she had plenary power over the 
colonies; the latter insisted that she had no power over them with¬ 
out their consent. There were men on both sides of the water who 
realized that both these doctrines were destructive of true political 
unity in the British Empire, and who, being desirous to preserve 


NEUTRALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


565 


the then existing political unity of the Empire, were trying to find 
a via media between these extremes. Their work resulted in the 
development of a doctrine of imperialism according to which the 
British Empire was regarded as a federalistic political organism, 
of which Great Britain was the federal head. This plan was evolved 
by the efforts of John Dickinson in America and of William Pitt 
(Lord Chatham) in England. Washington and most of the mod¬ 
erate men in America sympathized with the idea, though they hesi¬ 
tated to commit themselves to it as a practical proposition under 
the circumstances then existing. Lord Chatham’s bill, which was 
rejected instantly by the British House of Lords upon its introduc¬ 
tion, and which was never introduced in the House of Commons, 
would have declared, if it had been enacted into law, that Great 
Britain’s power in the Empire, exercised through the British Parlia¬ 
ment, should only extend to matters touching the general weal ” 
of Great Britain and the colonies, which were beyond the com¬ 
petency ” of the government of a colony. Had the imperialism 
proposed by Lord Chatham been accepted, the American colonies 
would have been in some sense member-states of the British Empire, 
while Great Britain would have been at the same time a member-state 
of the Empire, and the federal head of the Empire. The British 
Government would have been both the state government of Great 
Britain and the federal government of the Empire. 

Such a federalistic empire, it was then assumed, must be based 
on treaty between the member-states, negotiating on an assumed 
basis of equality, or on a continued process of arbitration within 
the empire, for the purpose of determining the extent of the power 
of Great Britain as the federal head to be exercised for the common 
purposes, and the extent of the power of the colonies as member- 
states to be exercised for local purposes. Burke opposed this policy. 
Lie declared that such a conception of empire was impossible, be¬ 
cause it would either involve the entering into “ a labyrinth of in¬ 
tricate and endless negotiations ” or would depend upon the 
juridical determination of perplexing questions ” arising in the 
process of the precise marking of the shadowy boundaries of a 
complex government.” Lie also raised the objection that Great 


566 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

Britain, as a member-state of a federalistic British Empire, could 
not justly act as the federal head, because in all or most disputes 
with the colonies Great Britain would be a judge in her own cause. 

Burke, however, agreed with Samuel Adams, Dickinson, Lord 
Chatham, and many others in differentiating the power exercised 
by the Parliament of Great Britain in the Empire from the power 
exercised by it in Great Britain. The power exercised by the Parlia¬ 
ment in the Empire they all agreed was a superintending power,” 
different in its nature from the strictly legislative power ” which 
it exercised in Great Britain. 

The plan for federalizing the British Empire failed; but the idea 
of federalism lived. It was applied in one way when the United 
States were formed into a nation by the Constitution; and the con¬ 
ception of a British Empire federalized in the same way as the 
American Union, or in some way approximating that Union, never 
wholly died. After the American Bevolution, and particularly 
after the federal imion of the United States by the Constitution, 
it was inevitable that in all disagreements between Great Britain 
and her colonies there should have been a tendency on both sides 
to find a middle ground in a policy of federalistic imperialism. The 
dispute with Canada in 1841 was settled in the same way that it 
would have been had that policy been accepted; though Great 
Britain then maintained and still maintains her former position 
that as head of the British Empire she has, and of right ought to 
have, plenary power throughout the Empire. 

The movement towards the atheistic, positivist, and individu¬ 
alist philosophy which swept the world after the French Bevolution 
led to the acceptance in Great Britain of the dogma of universal 
nationalism and universal free trade. Adam Smith’s doctrine, an¬ 
nounced in 1776, that the world ought to be reorganized so that it 
should consist of a great number of independent nations trading 
freely with each other, was attempted to be put into practice; the 
policy of nationalism was widely accepted, and doctrinaires began 
to urge the recognition of all colonies as independent. It was soon 
realized, however, that colonies, if declared independent, would not 
necessarily adopt the doctrine of universal free trade, and when 


NEUTEALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


567 


the policy of nationalism was seen to be associated with the policy 
of protection, its wisdom began to be doubted. However, Great 
Britain, during the period of its supremacy as a manufacturing 
center, inclined towards the policy of nationalism and anti-im¬ 
perialism. 

During the period from 1850 to 1870, the anti-imperialist senti¬ 
ment in England was strong. It received its first check during the 
American civil war. The spectacle of a nation engaged in a 
struggle for the maintenance of its federal unity, coupled with the 
sudden stoppage of supplies to Great Britain, which might have been 
furnished by the colonies if a federalistic unity had been developed 
in the British Empire, caused British publicists, economists, and 
financiers- to consider the possibilities which might result from a 
federalistic unity of the Empire. Thus, in the early days of the 
American civil war the federalistic imperialism which Dickinson 
and Lord Chatham had advocated in the American Devolution had 
its rebirth in the British Empire. A sentiment arose in favor of 
uniting the British Empire into a single political entity; and with 
the American Union so prominently in the foreground of the world’s 
affairs, it was natural that the first plans for unifying the Empire 
should have contemplated the conversion of the British Empire into 
a federal union like the United States. 

It was immediately seen, both in Great Britain and the colonies, 
that the American plan of union was not feasible for widely scat¬ 
tered countries; and that it was necessary that Great Britain should 
always remain the head of the Empire — her Executive and Leg¬ 
islature acting as the Government of the Empire. They therefore 
sought to bring about a unity of the British Empire by the appli¬ 
cation of the principle of federalism in some new way which should, 
perhaps, tend to approximate to the system of federalism applied 
in the United States, but which should be compatible with Great 
Britain remaining the head of the Empire. In 1862, the Saturday 
Eeview defined the new policy of imperialism as a policy of con¬ 
tinual approach on the part of England and her colonies to the reali¬ 
zation of some idea of Federal Empire.” The Times was inclined 
to doubt the possibility of applying the principle of federalism in 


568 THE AMEEICAH JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

any way in the British Empire, and to deprecate any policy which 
should not be based on a study of imperial precedents. In 1870, 
the Times said that those who were seeking to unify the Empire 
and make it permanent had two courses open to them — they must 
either extract a principle of government from the precedents they 
find recorded at the Colonial Office, or throw over these principles 
and devise a system of federal government without an example in 
the history of our Empire.’’ 

In 1868, the Koyal Colonial Institute was formed to counteract 
the anti-imperialist tendencies and to promote the unity and perma¬ 
nence of the Empire. This was a society for study, discussion, and 
sociability, composed of men from all parts of the Empire. After 
a very distinguished and successful career, in the course of which 
it has had great influence in promoting the unity of the Empire, 
the Institute still flourishes, housed in a fine building and possess¬ 
ing a large and valuable library of books relating to the British 
Empire and imperial subjects generally. 

The movement for unifying the Empire continued to gather 
force, and in 1884 the Imperial Federation League was formed. 
This Avas a large organization, the object of which Avas to secure 
by federation the permanent unity of the Empire.” In 1886, the 
Marquis of Lome, after his return from service as Governor-Gen¬ 
eral of Canada, Avriting of imperial federation, declared that the 
League might do much good by its assertion of the great prin¬ 
ciples of individual and corporate freedom leading to unity.” In 
1887, on the occasion of the Queen’s Jubilee, the first conference 
of the premiers of the self-governing colonies Avas held in London, 
largely as a result of the imperial federation movement. The 
subject of imperial federation or imperial unity Avas not discussed 
at this conference, its deliberations being confined to questions of 
communication and defense Avithin the Empire. Nevertheless, Lord 
Salisbury Avent so far as to say on this occasion that the aspirations 
and theories of those aaLo Avere interested in the imperial federation 
movement Avere nebulous matter that in the course of ages — in 
much less than ages — Avill cool doAvn and condense into material 
from Avhich many practical and business-like resolutions may very 
likely come.”. 


NEUTEALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


569 


The discussion which had occurred up to this time had shown 
that the plan for federating the British Empire in the same way 
as the United States was unsatisfactory alike to Great Britain and 
the colonies. Great Britain would not agree to it, because the his¬ 
toric British Parliament, which for six centuries had stood at the 
head of the British Empire, would have become the Parliament of 
the State of Great Britain, and there would have been a Parliament 
of the Empire, composed of representatives of Great Britain and 
the colonies, which would have been supreme over the British Parlia¬ 
ment for the common purposes of the Empire. Mr. Freeman, the 
great student of federalism, in 1892, wrote: 

I am no lover of empire; ’’ I am not anxious for my country to 
exercise lordship over other lands, English-speaking or otherwise. But 
I will not, so far as one man can hinder it, have my country ruled over 
by any other power, even by a power in which my country itself has a 
voice. If it is proposed that the great and historic Assembly which 
King Edward called into existence in 1295 shall keep its six hundredth 
anniversary by sinking to the level of the legislature of a canton of a 
Britannic confederation, then I shall be driven, however much against 
the grain, to turn Jingo and sing Eule, Britannia.’^ 

There was much division of sentiment in the colonies concerning 
imperial federation on American principles, but it seems that the 
general sentiment was unfavorable to it. The extremists and na¬ 
tionalists held out for independence; the conservative and unionist 
element doubted whether an assembly representing a number of 
widely scattered countries, acting by majority vote, might not often 
enact legislation which would be injurious to the minority, even 
though attempting to exercise, wdth the best intentions, a power 
limited to legislation for the common interests. It was realized 
that the condition of mutual knowledge of each other’s circumstances, 
which is the prime requisite to just action of an assembly by ma¬ 
jority vote, would be lacking in such an assembly, since the wide 
separation of colonies from each other and from the metropolitan 
nation makes it impossible for the representatives of each to know 
the circumstances of the others; and it was evident that to establish 
a legislative assembly for the common purposes which could act 
only by unanimous vote would probably result in nothing being 


570 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

agreed upon. A consideration which appealed alike to Great Britain 
and the colonies was that India, being without self-government, 
could not be brought into a federal organism on the American plan. 
A further though less serious ohjection made by some critics was 
that the isolated minor countries of the British Empire could not 
he brought into a strictly federal system. 

As time went on it became more and more evident that if the 
plan of federation on the American basis were to he given up, it 
was impossible to reach any general agreement upon a plan for 
federating the Empire. Freeman said that empire and federation 
were irreconcilable ideas; that what was federal could not be im¬ 
perial, and vice versa. This was true, taking the word federal ’’ 
in its literal sense, as meaning arising from treaty; ’’ but it only 
followed from this proposition that the British Empire could never 
he a federal ” organism, in the sense of an organism arising from 
treaty. It did not follow that the British Empire, or any other 
empire composed of a nation and its colonies, might not be a fed- 
eralistic organism — that is, an organism having some of the char¬ 
acteristics of a federal organism. It came gradually to he recog¬ 
nized that the working out of a system of federalistic imperialism 
was to be a slow and difficult matter, which must be left to publicists 
and statemen. As a result, the movement for federating the British 
Empire on the model of the American Union died, and the Imperial 
Federation League was dissolved in 1893. 

In 1897, on the occasion of the second Queen’s Jubilee, a second 
conference of the premiers of the self-governing colonies was held 
in London, at which Mr. Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the 
Colonies, in his opening speech, said: 

The idea of federation is in the air. Whether with you it has gone 
as far it is for you to say, and it is also for you to say whether we can 
give any practical application to the principle. 

The premiers decided, with two dissenting votes, that the pres¬ 
ent political relations between the United Kingdom and the self- 
governing colonies are generally satisfactory under the existing con¬ 
dition of things.” 

"While the imperial federation movement was going on, the Irish 


NEUTRALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


571 


Question was brought to a head by the introduction of Mr. Glad¬ 
stone’s Irish home-rule bills of 1886 and 1893. During the result¬ 
ing discussion, the distinction between a country contiguous or ad¬ 
jacent to a nation — which can be justly and equally represented 
in the government of the nation — and countries separated by a great 
expanse of land or water from the nation — which can never be 
justly and equally represented in the government of the nation — 
was brought to the attention of the people of the British Empire 
and the world in general. Ireland, since 1800, had been fully in¬ 
corporated into the British nation, and was justly and equally 
represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. A party 
in Ireland demanded that Ireland be disincorporated and recog¬ 
nized as a colony of Great Britain, standing in the same relation 
to Great Britain that Canada held to the United Kingdom. Mr. 
Gladstone’s two Irish home-rule bills had for their purpose this 
disincorporation and recognition of Ireland as a colony of Great 
Britain. Both bills failed, it having been decided by a clear pre¬ 
ponderance of the public sentiment in the United Kingdom that 
colonial self-government in such a case was impracticable. The 
self-preservation of the nation was, upon discussion, found to neces¬ 
sitate the incorporation of contiguous or adjacent countries into the 
body-politic of the nation where incorporation was possible, or the 
exercise of plenary power over them where incorporation was im¬ 
possible or during the period prior to incorporation. The status quo 
was therefore maintained; and the principle was established that 
contiguous or adjacent regions are to be regarded as subject to a 
regime of assimilation and to incorporation by the metropolitan 
nation, and as subject to its plenary power prior to incorporation 
to the extent necessary to its self-preservation, of which extent it 
is to judge subject to international accountability; and that those 
countries only are to be considered as colonies which are so sepa¬ 
rated by land or water from the metropolitan nation that they can 
never be justly and equally represented in the government of the 
nation. 

On the continent of Europe considerable progress was made dur¬ 
ing the years from 1870 to 1898 in determining the principles of 


572 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

imperialism. The establishment in 1871 of a united Germany, in 
which Prussia was the hegemonic state, had shown the possibility 
of a federalism which could be practically applied in cases where 
one of the member-states of a federal union overshadowed the others. 
The acquisition by Germany of Alsace-Lorraine, followed a few 
years later by the acquisition of colonies in Africa, led to study by 
German scholars of the relations between nations and their annexed 
contiguous and distant territory, as the result of which the relation¬ 
ship between Germany and Alsace-Lorraine was differentiated from 
the relationship between Germany and her colonies. Alsace-Lor¬ 
raine was designated as Reiclisland — that is, land under the plenary 
power of Germany destined to be assimilated with and incor¬ 
porated into Germany; and the colonies as Schutzgehiete — 
that is, territory which has a distinct political entity, under the 
protection and dominion of Germany. As a result of this study 
also German scholars differentiated and to some extent defined the 
power of a nation exercised within itself, as distinguished from the 
power exercised by a nation externally to itself over territory and 
countries under its jurisdiction. They showed that in the latter 
case the power of the nation as a political unit is projected upon and 
over external and distinct political units. This difference had been 
recognized, as has been said, during the discussion growing out of 
the dispute between Great Britain and the American colonies, and 
the power exercised by the Parliament of Great Britain in the 
Empire had been called the superintending power,’’ as distin¬ 
guished from the strictly legislative power exercised by the Parlia¬ 
ment within Great Britain. 

Influenced, perhaps, by this differentiation between the power of 
the nation exercised internally and its power exercised externally 
in the empire, the French National Colonial Congress, held at Paris 
in 1889, recommended that the power of the government of the 
French nation in the empire should be exercised by the advice 
of a special council composed of men familiar with colonial affairs 
and imperial policy, which was to keep in touch with local councils 
of the same nature in each colony advisory to the local government. 
Soon afterwards the Conseil Suphneur des Colonies was remodeled 


NEUTRALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


573 


in France and the Kolonialrath established in Germany — the old 
council system of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries being 
thus rehabilitated and developed. Largely also by the action of the 
French National Colonial Congress in recognizing the difference be¬ 
tween the power of a nation exercised internally and its power 
exercised externally in its empire, the management of the relations 
between France and its colonies was placed in the charge of a Secre¬ 
tary for Colonial Affairs. " 

On the continent of Europe, however, the federalistic conception 
of empire was not accepted. The International Colonial Congress, 
held at Paris in 1889, recognized the policy of assubjectization as 
equally permissible with the policy of assimilation and the policy 
of autonomy. Nor did the Congress attempt to define the cases to 
which a regime of assimilation was applicable or to distinguish them 
from the cases in which a regime of autonomy was applicable. The 
idea of the Congress seemed to be that the normal imperial policy 
was that which, regarding the colonies as an extension of the soil 
of the metropolitan nation, looked toward the benevolent assimila¬ 
tion ” of them by applying to them all the institutions and cus¬ 
toms of the metropolitan nation which they could be induced to 
adopt without extreme force; that an exceptional regime of au¬ 
tonomy was to be allowed in the case of those colonies which refused 
to submit to assimilation and threatened to revolt if not permitted 
to have self-government; and that an exceptional regime of assub¬ 
jectization was allowable as respects those backward peoples which 
refused either to be assimilated or to attempt to revolt. The Con¬ 
gress no doubt reflected the political views of Europe concerning 
imperialism at that time. There was no altruism in continental 
politics, and hence there could be none in the International Colonial 
Congress. 

Nor was the federalistic conception of empire which was begin¬ 
ning to arise in Great Britain and the British Empire based on any 
belief of the British people, collectively considered, in political 
altruism. Imperial federation in any form was regarded as appli¬ 
cable only to Great Britain and those colonies in which English 
settlers formed the bulk of the population, and which had developed 


574 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

self-goA^ernment by their own internal energy and insistence. The 
possibility of educating the people of the colonies in which the 
native inhabitants formed the bulk of the population so as to fit them 
for self-government, though suggested by British writers, seems not 
to have made any impression on the collective mind of Great Britain. 
Much less was the furnishing of such a political education regarded 
in Great Britain as the duty of the metropolitan nation. British 
colonial administration was devoted to the economic development 
of the colonies and to securing the individual rights of both the 
British and native inhabitants through just and expert administra¬ 
tive officials and through a learned and incorruptible judiciary. 
Education of native peoples in self-government, if not disapproved, 
was not aided. The prime purpose of imperial policy was considered 
to be the fostering of the trade of the Empire, and the only imperial 
federation desired was a federation of the colonies which were of 
British blood. Had such an imperial federation been accomplished, 
the colonies of non-British blood would have been placed in a lower 
class, and there would have resulted a kind of imperium in imperio. 

Such was the condition of imperialist thought in 1898, when, by 
the acquisition of Hawaii, the Philippines, and Porto Kico, this 
country was required to determine its relations with annexed coun¬ 
tries situated at so great a distance that they could never be justly 
and equally represented in the American Government, and which 
were therefore, according to accepted definition, colonies of the 
United States. It was inevitable that the United States, when once 
definitely committed to a policy of imperialism, should evolve an 
empire in which the principle of federalism should be applied to 
the fullest extent possible. Standing as the great exponent of 
federalism, and thoroughly convinced of the justice of the principle, 
this country did not need any impetus from abroad in this direction, 
and we took no heed of the policy of other nations. It is probable 
that even the imperial federation movement in Great Britain had 
no effect upon the formation of our imperial policy. In these last 
years, however, now that we have evolved a federalistic imperial 
policy, which, as will be shown, differs materially from that of any 
other nation in having a strong and definite altruistic character. 


NEUTRALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


575 


we are inclined to look abroad for the purpose of developing it by 
comparison with that of other nations. As a result of this com¬ 
parison we are beginning to appreciate that there is much to be 
learned from the thought and experience of Great Britain and the 
nations of Continental Europe, even though we are leading them 
towards a new and higher conception of empire which they have 
heretofore not perceived or have dismissed as impracticable and 
utopian. 

The United States in 1898 had had no experience in the manage¬ 
ment of colonies. All annexations by the United States previous 
to 1898 had been of contiguous territory, excepting in the case of 
Alaska, and that country had continued to be so sparsely settled 
that the question of its relations with the United States did not press 
for solution. The contiguous territory had been regarded as being 
inchoately a part of the body-politic of the American nation, and 
had been administered by the nation, prior to its incorporation, with 
a view of admitting the countries organized within the annexed 
territory as member-states of the Union. It was recognized by the 
action of Congress and the Executive, and by the decisions of the 
Supreme Court, that the E^ational Government of the United States 
exercised, and of right ought to exercise, plenary power for political 
purposes over this contiguous territory during its preparation for 
incorporation — individual rights being secured by the general pro¬ 
hibitions of the Constitution denying to the Federal Government 
the exercise of power anywhere in violation of such rights. 

The purpose of the American Government towards the colonies 
was from the outset to perform the duties towards them which an 
enlightened altruism and an enlightened self-interest demanded. It 
is true that in the instructions of President McKinley to the Secre- 
tarv' of War, of December 21, 1898, it was declared that the mission 
of the United States was one of benevolent assimilation; ’’ but 
it must be pointed out that this statement is open to criticism only 
as applied to distant annexed regions, which can never be justly 
and equally •represented in the Government of the nation, and that 
it is correct and appropriate as applied to contiguous annexed 
regions. It is not surprising, all things considered, that this' dis- 


576 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

tinction should not have been appreciated at that time. The use 
which the anti-imperialists have made of this statement is by no 
means justified by the context. In the instructions it was said that 
the inhabitants of the Philippines were to be assured that full 
measure of individual rights and liberties which is the heritage of 
free peoples; ’’ and that good and stable government was to be 
bestowed “ ujDon the people of the Philippine Islands under the free 
flag of the United States.’’ In President McKinley’s message of 
December 5, 1899, the purpose of the United States towards the 
Philippines was thus declared: 

We shall make these people whom Providence has brought within our 
jurisdiction feel that it is their liberty and not our power, their welfare 
and not our gain, we are seeking to enhance. Our flag has never 
waved over any community but in blessing. I believe the Filipinos will 
soon recognize the fact that it has not lost its gift of benediction in its 
world-wide journey to their shores. 

In President McKinley’s message of December 3, 1900, the in¬ 
structions of the President to the second Philippine Commission, 
headed by Mr. Taft, were quoted. In these instructions, the follow¬ 
ing rule was prescribed: 

In all the forms of government and administrative provisions which 
they are authorized to prescribe, the Commission should bear in mind 
that the government which they are establishing is designed not for our 
satisfaction, or for the expression of our theoretical views, but for the 
happiness, peace, and prosperity of the people of the Philippine Islands; 
and the measures adopted should be made to conform to their customs, 
their habits, and even their prejudices, to the fullest extent consistent 
with the accomplishment of the indispensable requisites of just and 
effective government. * * * 

The many different degrees of civilization and varieties of custom 
and capacity among the people of the different islands preclude any 
definite instruction as to the part which the people shall take in the 
selection of their own officers; but these general rules are to be observed: 
That in all cases the municipal officers, who administer the local affairs 
of the people, are to be selected by the people; and that wherever officers 
of more extended jurisdiction are to be selected in any way, natives of 
the islands are to be preferred, and if they can be found competent and 
willing to perform the duties they are to receive the offices in preference 
to any others. 

ThRse instructions recognized that the general principle of federal¬ 
ism was to be applied throughout all regions under American juris- 


NEUTRALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


577 


diction by providing for the application of federal principles in the 
government of the Philippines. The paragraph on this subject read: 

In the distribution of powers among the governments organized by 
the Commission, the presumption is always to be in favor of the smaller 
subdivision, so that all the powers which can be properly exercised by 
the municipal government shall be vested in that government, and all 
the powers of a more general character which can be exercised by the 
departmental government shall be vested in that government, and so 
that in the governmental system which is the result of the process the 
central government of the islands, following the example of the dis¬ 
tribution of the powers between the States and the National Government 
of the United States, shall have no direct administration except of 
matters of purely general concern, and shall have only such supervision 
and control over local government as may be necessary to secure and 
enforce faithful and efficient administration by local officers. 

In the report of the second Philippine Commission transmitted 
to the President November 21, 1901, the conception of the purpose 
of the American administration in the Philippines as a purpose to 
educate the natives of the islands in self-government, so that the 
Philippine Archipelago might ultimately become a self-governing 
colony of the American empire, like Canada in its relation to the 
metropolitan nation, but unlike Canada in being under the self- 
government of its native peoples, was carefully brought out. In 
that report it was said: 

We have thought that by establishing a form of municipal govern¬ 
ment practically autonomous, with a limited electorate, and by subject¬ 
ing its operations to the scrutiny and criticism of a provincial govern¬ 
ment in which the controlling element is American, we could gradually 
teach them the method of carrying on government according to Ameri¬ 
can ideas. In the provincial government Filipinos are associated in¬ 
timately with Americans, and in the central government the same thing 
is true. As the government proceeds the association in actual govern¬ 
ment will certainly form a nucleus of Filipinos, earnest, intelligent, 
patriotic, who will become familiar with practical free government and 
civil liberty. This saving remnant will grow as the years go on and in 
it will be the hope of this people. 

President Koosevelt, in his first message to Congress on December 
5, 1901, vitalized and rendered permanent the sagaciously altruistic 
conception of empire which had been evolved by President Mc¬ 
Kinley, by his Secretary of War, Mr. Root, and by the Commission 


578 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

headed by Mr. Taft, at the same time showing its full significance 
in its relation to the imperial policy of the rest of the world. In 
that message, he thus stated the principle upon which American im¬ 
perial policy was to be based, and described the manner in which we 
were to apply that principle in our relations with the Philippines: 

To be permanently effective, aid must always take the form of help¬ 
ing a man to help himself; and we can all best help ourselves by join¬ 
ing together in the work that is of common interest to all. * * * 

In dealing with the Philippine, people we must show both patience 
and strength, forbearance and steadfast resolution. Our aim is high. 
We do not desire to do for the islanders merely what has elsewhere been 
done for tropic peoples by even the best foreign governments. We hope 
to do for them what has never before been done for any people of the 
Tropics — to make them fit for self-government after the fashion of the 
really free nations. 

This announcement of President Roosevelt evidenced that this 
nation committed itself to a new policy of imperialism, which 
though proceeding along the lines of the most enlightened imperial 
policy then existing in the world, and carrying forward that policy 
to its logical and final outcome, was adopted without reference to 
the policy of other nations as an inevitable development from Ameri¬ 
can principles. This American imperialism was declared to be not 
a policy of imperial federation between this country and those of 
its annexed countries in which the population was of American blood 
or in which American blood was able to dominate, but a policy of 
raising up and developing peoples of alien blood and alien institu¬ 
tions, educating them in self-government, and assisting them in 
forming themselves into states of an American empire, of which the 
United States should be the head, and which should be held together 
not by force but by the bonds of interest and amity. 

This announcement of President Roosevelt was made shortly after 
the Supreme Court of the United States had recognized that the 
relations between the United States and the insular countries were 
the relations between a nation and its colonies.- According to our 
system, the Supreme Court, in order to decide cases involving the 
constitutional rights of individuals which are guaranteed by the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States, finds it necessary at times to de¬ 
termine the nature of the relation bet’ween the United States and its 


NEUTRALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


579 


annexed territory. Inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Federal 
courts extends to all cases arising under the Constitution of the 
United States and acts of Congress, any person claiming to be 
aggrieved by the action of Congress, or by Exesutive action under 
the Constitution or an act of Congress, affecting individual action 
in or with relation to annexed regions, may raise the question of the 
power of Congress or the President over any annexed region. Prior 
to 1901, the only cases which had arisen in the Supreme Court in¬ 
volving the power of the United States over its annexed territory 
had related wholly to its power over contiguous annexed territory 
which was practically uninhabited. Such territory was inevitably 
destined, from strategical necessity growing out of the national 
duty of self-preservation, and from the mutual interest of the nation 
and the people of the territory, to be incorporated, after a prepara¬ 
tory regime of assimilation, into the Union as member-states. The 
Supreme Court had in a long course of decisions recognized the 
power of the Congress, and of the President by the authority or 
subject to the disapproval of Congress, to create or alter govern¬ 
ments in annexed territory, and generally to exercise plenary power 
over such territory for purely political purposes. Thus, the Supreme 
Court had differentiated the power exercised by this nation ex¬ 
ternally, through the Congress, the President, and the Supreme 
Court, over territory and countries within its jurisdiction, from the ' 
limited power exercised by Congress, the President, and the Supreme 
Court within the nation under the Constitution of the United States. 
The only limitation recognized by the Supreme Court upon the 
power of the nation wielded externally by the Congress, or by the 
President under the authority of Congress or subject to its dis¬ 
approval, was a limitation in favor of the rights of the individual to 
life, liberty, and property, which are recognized and secured by the 
Constitution of the United States throughout all places under Ameri¬ 
can jurisdiction. As a part of the regime of assimilation applied 
to the contiguous annexed territory of the United States, the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States had been extended ’’ by act of Con¬ 
gress over the inchoate States, called Territories,’’ which had been 
organized by act of Congress out of the contiguous annexed territory. 


580 THE AMEEICAN JOUKNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

This extension ’’ of the Constitution was not regarded bj the 
Supreme Court as atfecting the plenary power of Congress over 
matters purely political in these organized Territories. Under the 
late decisions of the court, the effect of extension ’’ of the Con¬ 
stitution seems to be to put in force, in the organized Territory to 
Avhich the Constitution is extended,’’ all the provisions of the 
Constitution which protect the rights of the individual against gov¬ 
ernmental action, in exactly the words of the Constitution and in 
exactly the same sense that those words have within the States of the 
Union. 

The treaty with Spain left the relations between the United 
States and the ceded countries in the situation in which they were 
by international law and usage. The Insular Cases presented to the 
Supreme Court the question in what manner and on what principle 
the courts were to secure and protect the rights of individuals to life, 
liberty, and property, in actions growing out of transactions in or 
with relation to the conquered and ceded countries, whether con¬ 
tiguous or distant, and whether of American or alien blood, before 
Congress or the President had promulgated a bill of rights for these 
countries or had given them the United States hill of rights by 

extension ” of the Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that, 
from tlie moment of conquest or cession, the rights of individuals to 
life, liberty, and property were to be protected by the courts from 
governmental action in or relating to the conquered or ceded coun¬ 
tries on the principle that all the applicable provisions of the Con¬ 
stitution were in force in those countries from the instant of con¬ 
quest or cession, the Supreme Court determining what provisions 
of the Constitution were applicable in each case. Thus, a rule was 
established which enabled the courts at all times to protect the 
rights of individuals throughout the empire, and which was suffi¬ 
ciently flexible to enable the Supreme Court to do justice in all cases. 

The administration of the Philippines has been conducted under 
the direction of Mr. Root and later of Mr. Taft, as Secretary of 
War, according to the policy announced in President Roosevelt’s 
message of 1901. It has been the purpose to educate the people of 
the Philippines as rapidly as possible, not merely in an economic 



NEUTRALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


581 


way, and in the arts and sciences, though this has been one of the 
prime objects of the administration, but particularly in a political 
way; the political education being, however, essentially practical, 
and such theory being taught as is necessary to explain the practice. 
In municipal affairs the native inhabitants have been given almost 
entire control in all cases where this has been possible. While assist¬ 
ance has been given to them in the management of these affairs, 
and a supervision has been exercised for the purpose of preventing 
fraud and dishonesty, they have not only been allowed to manage 
their affairs honestly as they saw fit, but have been encouraged and 
protected in so doing. In the departmental divisions of the Philip¬ 
pines, corresponding in a general way to the States which it is hoped 
may subsequently be developed and may form themselves into a 
United States of the Philippine Islands under the headship of 
the United States of America, the native inhabitants have been given 
every opportunity to hold office which was possible and have been 
actually placed in positions of responsibility to the fullest extent 
which has been deemed compatible with good government. In the 
central government of the Philippine Islands several of the highly 
educated native inhabitants have already taken a very distinguished 
part, and the recent establishment of a Lower House of the General 
Assembly of the Philippine Islands, elected by a native electorate, 
marks, it is hoped, the beginning of a Central Government of the 
Philippine Islands which shall ultimately be controlled by the native 
inhabitants and be in the same relation to the Government of the 
United States as is the Government of Canada to the Government of 
the United Kingdom. 

This federalistic and altruistic imperialism which has been 
adopted as the American policy throughout the American empire is 
entirely different from the old imperialism. That proceeded on the 
basis that the metropolitan nation was the source of all political 
power in the colonies. This regards the colonies as states having 
inherent rights to their own political life to the extent that their 
activity does not interfere with the federalistic unity of the whole 
empire. Thus, modern imperialism, so far from being opposed to 
representative and republican institutions, proceeds upon the theory 


582 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

that the right to such institutions is universal to the fullest extent 
possible, and that they are therefore to be extended throughout the 
empire. The metropolitan nation is to extend its own representative 
and republican institutions under its own Constitution by incor¬ 
porating into its body-politic such contiguous lands and communities 
as it deems best, after preparing them for participation in its inner 
life. The colonies, which are so distant that they can never be in¬ 
corporated in this body-politic, it protects and develops into- self- 
governing states as rapidly as possible, having for its ultimate 
object the evolution of a federalistic empire composed of itself and 
a body of self-governing states, connected and united by bonds of 
interest and amity, of which empire, it shall be the representative 
and head. 

This new federalistic empire is, as has been said, based on dif¬ 
ferent principles from those which govern a strict federal union like 
the United States. There are several important questions regarding 
the organization of such an empire which have been discussed and 
in answer to which it is possible now to state with some confidence 
the principles on which this new form of political organism is to 
proceed. 

The first of these questions is. How are Congress and the Presi¬ 
dent to exercise the power of the nation over the colonies, and what 
is to be the relation of each to the other in exercising this power ? 

The answer seems not to be difficult when the difference between 
the power of a nation exercised within itself and the power exer¬ 
cised by it externally over its colonies is considered. When the 
government of a nation acts internally, it exercises a power which is 
partly legislative, partly executive, and partly judicial. The prin¬ 
ciple of distribution of powers ” applies, and the three functions 
of government are placed in different hands. When the government 
of a nation acts externally over the colonies, it wields the power of 
the nation as a unit over other political units, in a way somewhat 
similar to that in which it acts when it exercises the treaty-making 
power or the war power: the power exercised by the nation is 
essentially one of superintendence for the purpose of standardizing 
the political units constituting the empire and unifying them, which 



J^^EUTEALIZATION VEESUS IMPEKIALISM . 


583 


necessitates investigation and adjudication concerning political 
objects external to the nation. The exercise of this power results in 
acts of the government of the nation which have the effect of legisla¬ 
tive, executive, and judicial acts in the colonies, but the superin¬ 
tending power exercised by a nation in its empire is as indivisible 
in its nature as the treaty-making power or the war power. When¬ 
ever power is exercised by two persons non-concurrently, either one 
must act and the other advise, or one must act in the first instance 
and the other in the final instance Avith poAver to OA'^errule and super¬ 
sede. In the latter case, the one first acting is bound by all the 
preAUOUS rulings of the other, and his action may be modified, over¬ 
ruled, or superseded by the other. The experience of all nations 
in the management of the relations Avith their colonies points to the 
latter arrangement being the proper one to apply to such a case. The 
executive of the nation acts in the first instance, being bound by all 
the rulings of the legislature, and his action is subject to be modi¬ 
fied, OA’-erruled, and in some cases to be superseded by the action of 
the legislature. This principle has been recognized by Congress 
and the Supreme Court. Congress has authorized the President to 
exercise all political poAvers over annexed territory, and the Supreme 
Court has upheld its action. If the poAver of Congress over such 
territory Avere strict legislative poAver, it could not delegate the 
poAver. It is not settled by the Supreme Court AAdiether the Presi¬ 
dent exercises poAver over the colonies Avholly by delegation of Con¬ 
gress. The latest intimation of the opinion of the court is that he 
may exercise civil poAver Avithout authority of Congress, in cases of 
neAV acquisitions, though of course in this case, as in all others, the 
action of Congress Avhen taken, and the precedents established by 
Congress and the Supreme Court in other cases, bind the President. 
Thus, there is no danger of the President becoming an emperor.’^ 
The imperialism of the present day leaA^es the legislature of the 
metropolitan nation as the final tribunal and arbiter of the empire, 
controlling by its decision the executive. Any exercise by the Presi¬ 
dent of the poAver of the nation over the colonies is as an official or 
tribunal of first instance; so that he exercises this poAA^er under the 
authority or subject to the disapproval of Congress, and subject also 
to its poAA^er to modify, OA^errule, or supersede his action. 


584 THE AMEEICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

The advantage in having the President exercise the power of the 
nation over the colonies in the first instance is that the Executive 
Departments of the Government can usually act more effectively in 
matters which require an investigation of facts external to the United 
States than can the Congress ; and while Congress must, in matters 
of great importance, make such investigations and adjudicate and 
finally determine the great questions arising in the course of our 
relations with our colonies, the power of the nation over the colonies 
will, it would seem, probably be most justly exercised if the President 
exercises it in the first instance in all matters not of great impor¬ 
tance, and Congress confines itself to supervising his action and 
determining questions of great importance. 

Another question which has been much discussed is. How are the 
powers of the metropolitan nation in its empire, regarding the 
empire as federalistic, to be legally limited ? 

The difficulty with every federalistic conception of empire is to 
find some principle by which the powers of the metropolitan nation 
in the empire may be legally limited. It is productive only of con¬ 
fusion to speak of an organism as federal or even federalistic, when 
as a matter of fact the limitations upon the power of the central 
government are in their last analysis only self-limitations. Three 
theories have been suggested concerning the basis upon which the 
limitation of the powers of a metropolitan nation in its empire may 
be regarded as legally limited. The first is the theory of the Supreme 
Court of the United States, that the power of the Congress of the 
United States over the colonies is limited by all the applicable 
provisions ’’ of the Constitution of the United States. This theory 
furnishes a basis for legal limitations upon governmental power as 
respects individuals, and enables the courts to protect the rights of 
the individual in cases arising in or with relation to the colonies; 
but it seems to afford no basis for legal limitations upon the purely 
political powers of the metropolitan nation and the colonies. The 
Supreme Court can determine what provisions of the Constitution 
are applicable in cases involving the rights of individuals; but even 
though all concerned agree that the relations between the United 
States and the colonies are to be determined by applying the ap- 


NEUTEALIZATIOIT VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


585 


plicable provisions of the Constitution of the United States, there is 
still lacking a basis on which to decide the question of applicability 
in those purely political disputes which are outside the jurisdiction 
of the Supreme Court. Another theory of the manner in which the 
powers of a metropolitan nation in its empire are limited is that 
these limitations are under an unwritten constitution theoretically 
established by all the people of the empire, but actually not existent 
except as formulated by the act of imperial conferences, by imperial 
arbitrations, and by imperial legislation. But this is indefinite, and 
all limitations of this kind would seem to be in their last analysis 
self-limitations. A third and perhaps the most reasonable theory is 
that the powers of a metropolitan nation in its empire are limited by 
an imperial law common to all empires, nations, states, and colonies, 
which is based, like international law, on the common juridical 
sentiment of the civilized world and upon the actual policy and 
practice of civilized nations. 

The supposition of the existence of such an imperial law seems 
at first sight violent, but it is a less difiicult conception than was that 
of international law in the time of Grotius. Anyone who attempts 
to study the relations between nations and colonies or the methods 
of colonial administration immediately finds it necessary to study 
the theory and practice of all nations and all colonies, because the 
necessities of the situation are in a general way the same in the case 
of one nation and its colonies as in the case of all other nations and 
their colonies. It is true that there will probably always be disputes 
arising between nations and their colonies which can not be settled 
by the application of known principles; but the same is true con¬ 
cerning disputes of nations with other nations, and yet this is not 
considered to militate against the existence of international law. 
The supposition of an imperial law makes it possible to understand 
the tendency toward the solution by imperial conference and im¬ 
perial arbitration of questions arising in the course of the relations 
between Great Britain and its colonies. According to the federalis- 
tic conception of empire, the relations between the member-states of 
the empire have an inteniational aspect, and these relations are prop¬ 
erly settled by conference beBveen the states within the empire, or. 


586 the ameeican jouenal of inteehatiohal law 

in case of failure of the conference to agree unanimously, by arbitra¬ 
tion within the empire. Conference or arbitration supposes the 
existence of a law by which the political units who join in the con¬ 
ference or who submit to arbitration recognize tliemselves to be 
bound. 

The supposition of an imperial law determining the relations 
between nations and their colonies is opposed to any conception of 
world empire. It is essential to the conception of such an imperial 
law that there should always exist several empires, as well as nations 
without colonies, by whose theory and practice the principles of 
such a law would be determined. 

On the theory of a federalistic empire under imperial law, non-self- 
governing or partially self-governing colonies are regarded as states 
of the empire equally with self-governing colonies, and are entitled 
to participate in imperial conferences and to submit their questions 
to imperial arbitration. Officials appointed by the United States to 
participate in the local government of colonies are not in the position 
of rulers of the colony, but of substitutes for citizens of the colonies 
in the offices held by them; and such substitution is to last only so 
long as necessary" in order that there may be a just and stable local 
government. 

It seems, therefore, that in the federalistic American empire 
formed of the United States as metropolitan nation and the insular 
countries as member-states, it is possible to find, in this imperial 
law, if recognized and acted upon, a basis for legal limitations upon 
the powers of the United States when exercising power for the com¬ 
mon purposes of the empire, and upon the powers of the insular 
countries when exercising power for local purposes. 

Another question which is beginning to be discussed is. How shall 
the exercise of the power of the metropolitan nation in its empire, 
by the legislature, and by the executive with the authority or subject 
to the disapproval of the legislature, be safeguarded? 

The first safeguard would, seem to be the recognition by the legis¬ 
lature and the executive of the nation and by the people of the 
nation and of the empire, that all imperial matters are regulated 
by imperial law. By such a recognition, all danger of absolutism in 
the empire may, it would seem, be avoided. Every act of the met- 


NEUTRALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


587 


ropolitan nation or of the colonies would thus be judged of by the 
nation, by the colonies, and by the world at large as an act of juris¬ 
diction, and the relations of the different parts of the empire would 
be based upon justice, reason, and mutual interest. 

A second safeguard would he the establishment of a department of 
imperial affairs in the executive government of the nation. Assum¬ 
ing that the relations between a nation and its colonies are under 
imperial law and that those between it and other nations are under 
international law, it results that the affairs of nations having 
colonies fall into three great classes — internal affairs, imperial 
affairs, and foreign affairs. To imperial affairs, therefore, it would 
seem that the separate secretariat should be appropriated. 

A third safeguard would be the establishment of special councils 
in the metropolitan nation, advisory to the executive and legislature, 
composed of men who are familiar with the local circumstances of 
the colonies and with the history, the principles, and the practice 
of imperial government, whose advice might be taken on proposed 
governmental action, and from whom investigating boards for im¬ 
perial purposes and tribunals of imperial arbitration might be 
selected. This method of safeguarding the action of the executive 
and legislature, when either is exercising the power of the nation in 
the empire, is already adopted to a greater or less extent in the 
British and European empires. 

A fourth safeguard would be the institution of imperial con¬ 
ferences, at which commissioners of the nation, together with its 
secretary for imperial affairs, may confer with commissioners of the 
colonies for the purpose of reaching by agreement a decision of com¬ 
plicated and difficult questions arising in the empire or growing out 
of the relations between the empire and the rest of the world. By 
the action of the imperial conference of the British Empire held at 
London in 1007, imperial conferences at regular periods were recog¬ 
nized as a part of the government of the Empire. 

A fifth safeguard is the institution, within the nation, of tri¬ 
bunals of imperial arbitration, by whose decisions upon imperial 
questions the nation and the colonies will hold themselves to be bound, 
but who would not be called upon to act except when imperial 
conferences failed to agree unanimously. 


588 THE AMEKICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

With these various safeguards thrown about the exercise of power 
in the empire by the Congress and the President of the United 
States, and with the additional safeguard for the life, liberty, and 
property of the individual given through the exercise by the Su¬ 
preme Court of jurisdiction throughout the American empire in all 
cases in which these rights are claimed to be violated, it seems that 
no danger to the institutions of the country is to be feared. The 
system of federalistic imperialism which has been outlined above 
preserves all the American principles — the principle of political 
unity throughout the regions under American jurisdiction, with 
states’ rights universally recognized and protected; the principle of 
governmental poAver universally limited by a supreme laAV, with these 
limitations enforced by adequate safeguards; and the principle of 
protection by the courts of the individual’s fundamental rights 
against the Government. 

Another question which is becoming serious in the British Empire 
and may very likely become serious in the American empire is. 
What are the rights of commerce and intercourse between the dif¬ 
ferent states of the empire, grooving out of the imperial citizenship 
which follows from the recognition of the federalistic unity of the 
empire ? 

In answer to this, it is to be considered that the federalistic em¬ 
pire of the future is probably to vary from the federally united 
political organisms like the United States in the direction of inter¬ 
nationalism. That is to say, the poAvers exercised by the United 
States for the common purposes of the empire and the poAvers ex¬ 
ercised by the colonies within themselves are probably ahvays to 
liaA^e someAvhat the aspect that they Avould have if the United States 
and its colonies AA^ere an alliance and the United States AA-ere the 
leader of the alliance. SomeAAliere in the direction of federal 
union, betAveen the tAvo extremes of alliance and strict unity, the 
line is to be drawn by AA^hich the details of government in the empire 
Avill be determined. Imperial citizenship probably Avill not, there¬ 
fore, carry with it the same rights of unrestricted commerce and 
intercourse Avithin the empire that citizenship of the United States 
carries Avithin the American Union. The relations betAAwn the dif¬ 
ferent states of the empire and the relations of each state with the 




NEUTRALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM 


589 


metropolitan nation will doubtless always have an aspect somewhat 
international. The inhabitants of each colony, as a state of the 
empire, will no doubt be recognized as having an imperial citizen¬ 
ship by virtue of their state citizenship, which will carry some rights 
in each other state of the empire different from those which they 
would enjoy in a foreign nation. But each colony, as a state of the 
empire, must be permitted to exercise such rights as are properly 
necessary for its self-preservation and for the highest development 
of itself, the empire, and the world at large; and therefore each 
colony must, it would seem, be permitted, within limits, and subject 
to the control of imperial conference and imperial arbitration, to 
regulate not only its commerce but also its intercourse with the 
other parts of the empire, even perhaps in extreme cases to the point 
of prohibiting such trade and immigration proceeding from within 
the empire itself as is incompatible with the self-preservation of the 
colony. 

Another and most important question which suggests itself is. 
How are all parts of an empire justly to contribute the funds which 
it is necessary for the metropolitan nation to use for the common 
defense and welfare of the empire ? 

The conception of a federalistic empire negates the idea of a com¬ 
mon congress or parliament of the empire in which each state of the 
empire, and its population, are represented; hence, there can be no 
taxation for the common purposes of the empire. It also negates tlie 
idea of the metropolitan nation exploiting the colonies for its own 
benefit, and thus obtaining indirectly from the colonies the resources 
with which to pay the debts incurred by it for the common defense 
and welfare. In the federalistic empire, therefore, the money to 
meet the expenses incurred in the common defense and for the com¬ 
mon welfare must be obtained by the contribution of the colonies. 
These contributions will naturally be determined by imperial con¬ 
ferences, or, on failure of the conferences to agree, by imperial 
arbitration. 

The greatest expenses which the metropolitan nation will have to 
incur in the exercise of power for the common purposes of the states 
of the empire will no doubt be those arising from the defense of 
empire and from the establishing of communication between the 


590 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

different parts of the empire. The wide separation of the parts of 
the empire requires the maintenance of a large fleet for imperial 
defense and of cables and other modes of communication. To these 
expenses it seems clear that the colonies should contribute justly. 
But as some wars made by the nation may be aggressive, or may 
concern the metropolitan nation exclusively, it seems not impossible 
that, as the federalistic nature of the empire comes to he recognized, 
a rule of international law may be estahlished permitting neutrality, 
in some cases, to a colony not contributing to the expenses of war 
waged by the nation, upon proper conditions. 

From what has been said, it has, it is hoj)ed, been made clear that 
imperialism is not a policy which implies ownership ’’ of peoples 
or rule over subject-peoples,” and that in the last three decades the 
character of imperial policy has so much changed that it may not be 
unreasonable to believe that the policy is evolving into a science. 
As there is a recognized science of international relations and another 
recognized science of the internal relations of nations and states, 
there may yet perhaps be recognized a science of imperial relations. 

Unlike the policy of neutralization,” imperialism presences the 
status quo, and involves no change in the existing relationships of 
the nations and states of the world; as an American policy it is 
wholly consistent with the permanent maintenance of the Monroe 
Doctrine. It does not imply extension of power by aggression; on 
the contrary, it accepts the existing situation as respects nations and 
their colonies, and seeks to ascertain the just principles applicable to 
the relationship, on the theory that the peace of nations and states, 
as of individuals, depends upon the establishment of just principles, 
which, by general recognition and adoption, determine the relations 
of each to the other. The empire thus established, in which indi¬ 
vidual rights, state rights, and republican institutions are secured 
and guaranteed to the fullest extent possible, has a benevolent purpose 
which might not exist in an alliance of great powers doing police 
duty ” over neutralized ” states. 

As the simpler, juster, more practicable, and more useful 
policy, therefore, it seems that imperialism is to be preferred to 

neutralization.” 


Alpheus Henry Snow. 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
















